May 27, 2014

Here's a nice highbrow interview by Jonathan (not John) Derbyshire in the UK Prospect with Yale English professor David Bromwich who writes on philosophy of foreign policy for the New York Review of Books and the like.

In college, I wrote a term paper on Edmund Burke's (1729-1797) influence on the maturing Wordsworth (1770-1850), especially on Wordsworth's long poem The Prelude. So I can see where Bromwich is coming from. Wordsworth moved from the far left when he was first in France during the Revolution to the stodgy right when he was old, while Burke moved from the mild left during most of his career (arguing for conciliation of American revolutionaries and prosecuting Warren Hastings for exploiting the natives under the East India Company) to the far right under the mental stresses of the 1790s. But peak Burke (1790's Reflections on the Revolution in France) had a notable influence on peak Wordsworth (1805's The Prelude).

JD: One can read these essays, I think, as an attempt to provide a genealogy or diagnosis of America’s failings since the end of the Cold War. You argue that this is partly a failure of “moral imagination”.

DB: But the phrase “moral imagination” comes from Burke, from a passage in the Reflections on the Revolution in France. He’s talking about the “wardrobe” of moral imagination and it’s knowing, so to speak, how to use clothing from that wardrobe that allows us to know that the Queen of France ought not to be subjected to humiliation. I think the best sentence that I can find to define the moral imagination comes from Shelley’s “Defence of Poetry”, where he talks about what he calls “love”: “a going out of our nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own.” It’s that identification of ourselves with something quite radically not our own that I take as definitive of the moral imagination—as opposed to what people now like to call empathy (I feel for you because you’re just like me and I’ve been there) or what I call energetic fantasy, the idea that you and yours, your people, are out to do good for the world and therefore ought to be supported. This sort of fantasy is, I think, deep in the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which has stolen on my country over the past twenty years with a grip that now baffles and disturbs me very much.

I think a real test of moral imagination in foreign affairs is to be able watch the great "Because we live here" scene from Milius's Red Dawn and be able to see how it applies both to the Wolverines in Colorado and to America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JB: There are stronger and weaker versions of that exceptionalism aren’t there? One of the interesting points you make is that, over the last twenty years, what happened to American exceptionalism was that “being exemplary”, as you put it, got confused with being “evangelical”. And that’s something new.

DB: Absolutely. There is a famous statement about the exemplary status that America might have in the world of moral conduct by Lincoln in his speech on the Dred-Scott case. There he says that the idea that all men should be created equal was meant by those who signed the Declaration of Independence as a standard maxim for a free society, which should be “constantly looked to,” “constantly laboured for” and “constantly approximated.” That’s the way Lincoln talks about it. It’s in that setting that he says the United States ought to be exemplary. Lincoln was an anti-imperialist. He made a big speech against the Mexican war of 1847. ...

I find this [concern about action] also in Wordsworth. This is not unique to my reading of him—you’ll find other critics sensitive to this train of thought or feeling. A poem like “Nutting” and even elements of the Prelude are full of the evidence of something equivocal about action, something to be concerned with even after you’ve committed yourself to the action. Of course, the mentality of empire goes absolutely in the opposite direction—one conquest must lead to another. ...

JD: There’s an environmental aspect to this as well isn’t there? You see it in the green conservatism of someone like Roger Scruton, who derives it from Burke’s notion of “stewardship” and of having obligations not only to future generations but also to nature.

That’s a fair connection to draw. You get it from Heidegger as well as Burke—the idea of “letting be”. This idea is utterly alien to the progressive ethos of modernization which liberalism shares with what we might call corporate or business conservatism. And to reject that means to become a radical with allies in surprising places. One of the things I’ve realised in the last eight or nine years is that my thinking runs much more parallel to that of certain consistent “right-wing” libertarians than it does to my former liberal friends, who are utterly progressive, without a second thought about backing the latest advance in computer science or whatever. And it was liberals who wrote the legal justification for drone warfare. ... Some of the sharpest critiques of American imperialism under Bush-Cheney and now under Obama have come from Patrick Buchanan. In some ways he’s a very bad man, but he’s a consistent anti-imperialist. When I say this to liberal friends, they say, “How dare you read this man!”

David Bromwich’s “Moral Imagination: Essays” is published by Princeton University Press (£19.95)

26 comments:

Jeff W.
said...

In the Burkean view, we not only have obligations to future generations and to nature, but also to previous generations, to honor their memory and to carry on with their project. Burke was also a Christian and recognized obligations to God.

When we fail in those obligations, we become what Burke called "flies of a summer."

It's not a seasonal reference. Modern American culture is all flies of a summer all of the time.

"watch the great "Because we live here" scene from Milius's Red Dawn and be able to see how it applies both to the Wolverines in Colorado and to America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Yeah, I think very, very few people can do both. Some paleocons can, and I've known some moderate liberals who can, oddly enough (the far-lefties are too anti-American, and people to the right are too jingoistic).

Also Buchanon is not an anti imperialist but a pacifist. Like Gore Vidal he hates US involvement in both World Wars and argues what that great mind John Cougar Mellencamp said, the US should have negotiated with Japan after Pearl Harbor. That is pure oacifism and idiocy.

And the 'evangelical' version of it goes back a lot more than 20 years-at least to TR and Wilson, and was present in various parts of all administrations starting with FDR.

And if Lincoln was anti-imperialist going south of the Rio Grande, he had zero problem with being imperialist going west of the Mississippi: fighting Indians even during the Civil War, bringing in the Homestead Act of 1862 and admitting Nevada into the Union even though it didn't qualify.

Some of the sharpest critiques of American imperialism under Bush-Cheney and now under Obama have come from Patrick Buchanan. In some ways he’s a very bad man, but he’s a consistent anti-imperialist. When I say this to liberal friends, they say, “How dare you read this man!”

Buchanan is really an interesting fellow. He has an historian's knowledge of history, especially American, and is able to pull out historical facts and anecdotes to create analogies to modern day events. He also has a way of describing historical events that makes it seem as though he were there when it occurred.

I enjoy his books,commentary and wish he was on TV more often. I find most people I talk to have a negative opinion of him BECAUSE they are told what a bad guy he is. After you explain to them his positions they seem taken aback. I've also had guys admit in private that they like him, but would never do so publicly.

It's too bad we didn't listen to this guy twenty some years ago when he was sounding the alarm on immigration, free trade and intervention. It's telling that he was correct on all three, but is in the dog house, while the neocons and neolibs who have bankrupted and demographically doomed us are still running the show.

I'm curious but would Paleocons root for or against the wolverines following the Ukranian contretemps. Because I really don't see much tribalism coming from the paleos just a lot of leap frogging loyalities as they compete to see who can gush more over Putin.

I'll add that Burke would have found the because we live here formulation completely unpersasive if offered by a Frenchman for why England and it's allies should not intervene to save the royal family and crush the revolution. Because we live here is really a pretty facile argument that has been persuasive only since the rise of the anti-imperialist left. With the one exception really being Joan of Arc. In her case an appeal to "because we live here" really did cut through a whole lot of feudal superstructure which wasn't particularly interested in who lived where but in who owed allegiance to whom.

Because we live here sure didn't help the pied noirs much did it. It's also kind of strange for paleos who demonstrate such support for the boers to adopt this form of argument.

Because we live here is an excellent and completely acceptable way to galvinize resistance to an invader, but I really don't understand how logically it constitutes are particularly persuasive argument when at the end of the day we all just about live somewhere because our ancestors were shrinkingly uninterested and unbothered by the fact someone else lived there.

I may be exaggerating the influence of the Joan of Arc revolution, but the replacement of feudal superstructure with nation-states seems like a massive accomplishment, just as it did 100 years ago after 99 years of mostly peace in Europe. The unfortunate events of 1914-45 gave nationalism a black eye, but the evolution of recent decades suggests that international war is less of a threat (knock on wood).

Joan of Arc's nationalism was a lot differbt than 19th century nationalism which was more sophisticated or at least integrated than because we live here. Because we live here God told me the English need to leave is a perfectly accurate paraphrase of Joan of Arc. When it gets to German nationalism especially the conflict between little or big German debate nationalism stops just being about because I live here because here is no longer so well defined. Does here include Vienna or not what about Alsace Lorraine? It's interesting to note that French nationalism in Alsace took the form not a because I live here style insurgency but instead a large emigration of French Alstatians to Algeria. That was the point I was trying to make above because I live here and nationalism are not synonymous except in Joan of Arcs case. That's because as far as arguments go it was a weak one until anti-imperialist sentiment became ascendant at which point because I live here became short hand for white man go home.

I'm curious but would Paleocons root for or against the wolverines following the Ukranian contretemps. Because I really don't see much tribalism coming from the paleos just a lot of leap frogging loyalities as they compete to see who can gush more over Putin.

You might direct that question to yourself in regards to your loyalty and gushing over a certain country in the middle east.

As far as rooting for the Wolverines, it depends on which Wolverines. Personally I did not like the Wolverines in the remake of Red Dawn. They were too multiculti for my liking, and I could not sympathize with them. On the other hand, I'd have gladly joined the band led by Patrick Swayze.

But the bigger issue is this. Paleos like Buchanan correctly saw the damage that would be done to our nation by demographic change, which would convert us from a nation into nothing more than a giant shopping center, or economic activity zone.

So I say again, as a paleo, I couldn't tell you whether I'd support the Wolverines until I saw who they were and what they were fighting for. Because in this day and age, there is no guarantee that they'd be fighting for the same America as us.

The Goog can't promote celebration of fallen heroes/vets aka Memorial Day but they can go all out to promote celebration of the earth (4.22) and now Rachel Carson, one of the high priestesses of modern environmental movement.

" Does here include Vienna or not what about Alsace Lorraine? It's interesting to note that French nationalism in Alsace took the form not a because I live here style insurgency but instead a large emigration of French Alstatians to Algeria."

Surely someone who knows about the large emigration of Alsatians to Algeria should know better to lump Alsace in with Lorraine. Sure, Napoleon did it, but a geographic barrier (the Vosges) separates the two regions-- and Alsace had been Germanic speaking since Tacitus, whereas Lorraine was always Gaulish/Latin.

Some of the sharpest critiques of American imperialism under Bush-Cheney and now under Obama have come from Patrick Buchanan. In some ways he’s a very bad man, but he’s a consistent anti-imperialist.

If there's anything Pat Buchanan is not, it's "a very bad man." Even those ideological enemies who know him grant that. There was discussion of this when he was booted from MSNBC. Someone noted that of all the on-air people there, Pat was the most popular with the staff, crew, make-up people, and drivers, to whom he was always friendly and courteous. To liberals, convinced that everyone who disagrees with them is evil, this did not compute.

"Because we live here sure didn't help the pied noirs much did it. It's also kind of strange for paleos who demonstrate such support for the boers to adopt this form of argument. "

I'm assuming you are thinking aloud rather than sniding disingenuously. So let me suggest that time and heft are what the boers lacked. Time is time; heft is relative. The scrawny Croats had sufficient against their weak adversaries, for example. The French have both time and numbers on the soil. The Germans and English, too, have both. There are many other examples.

In the new John Milius documentary on Netflix they shed some light on whatever his core perspective might have been, which seems to be not very theoretical-moralistic at all (and thus extremely out of step with the Zeitgeist). Watching it caused me wonder whatever happened to 1970s California surfer freaks who weren't determined to wield Leviathan's might in the high-holy destruction of: tobacco; fast food; stuff that uses oil; Dixie; Christianity; "controversial" books/movies; orca shows; plastic bags; or whatever world war is going down this week -- that extinct tribe must have merged with the northeastern Puritan Republicans while no one was looking.

BTW you also sort of get the kernel of his friendship with Spielberg and why the latter identified with him, whereas Oliver Stone and Francis Ford Coppola come across more dismissively. There are surprises with the more laudatory of the interviewees, like Elvis Mitchell and Matthew Weiner (and, weirdly, Bryan Singer)

Buchanan is anti-imperialist now. He was pro-imperialist during Vietnam, and I don't think he's ever retracted that.

Being anti-communist is not equal to being an imperialist. Many paleos supported opposing communism since it was seen as a worldwide threat on the march to wipe out Western Civ. So aiding nations falling under its attack should not be confused with imperialism.

BTW, though the USSR failed, I think people back in the 60s who were afraid of communism's intent on the destruction of Western Civ have unfortunately seen their fears confirmed. It might not be the USSR. It might not be Uncle Joe's party. But the current leftwing disease running rampant throughout the West is as destructive as anything we feared from the old eastern bloc.

"I think a real test of moral imagination in foreign affairs is to be able watch the great 'Because we live here' scene from Milius's Red Dawn and be able to see how it applies both to the Wolverines in Colorado and to America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Quite so. My only quibble is not with your observation but with an America in which such a comment would ever need to be made. I mean, how sad that it even requires any effort of imagination whatsoever to see something so bleeding bloody freaking OBVIOUS! How far we have fallen from the age of Burke.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.